Evidence Hub

Glaucoma and optical coherence tomography changes in migraine: A comparative cross-sectional study

Gayathri J. Panicker, S. Kaliaperumal, S. Narayan, M. Mani

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 2021

9 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To study the prevalence of glaucoma among adults with migraine and the effect of migraine on peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) and central macular thickness (CMT) using optical coherence tomography (OCT) compared to those without migraine headache, i.e. in tension-type headache (TTH) and normal group. Methods: One hundred and eleven patients (222 eyes) were recruited in three groups. migraine, TTH, and normal subjects visiting hospital outpatient services. After noting demographic details and pertinent history, ophthalmological evaluation including optic disc for glaucomatous changes along with computerized visual field testing and OCT for pRNFL thickness and CMT was performed in all eyes. Continuous variables were compared using ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test, while categorical variables including the association of glaucoma with migraine were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Results: Prevalence of glaucoma in migraine group (12.2%) was more than in comparison groups (6.8% in TTH, 4.1% in normal) which was however not significant (Fisher's exact P = 0.207). Average pRNFL thickness (103.59 ± 12.82 μm) and thickness in nasal (90.49 ± 19.19 μm) and temporal quadrants (70.58 ± 16.13 μm) and CMT (213.78 ± 19.81 μm) were significantly reduced (ANOVA P < 0.05) in migraine patients when compared to the other groups and this was independent of the presence of glaucoma. Conclusion: Prevalence of glaucoma is not significantly higher in migraine…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free